[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071115151429.GC22825@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:14:29 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@...ru>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, clg@...ibm.com,
benjamin.thery@...l.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] move unneeded data to initdata section
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 05:42:04PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > "Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org> writes:
> >
> >> This patch reverts Eric's commit 2b008b0a8e96b726c603c5e1a5a7a509b5f61e35
> >>
> >> It diets .text & .data section of the kernel if CONFIG_NET_NS is not set.
> >> This is safe after list operations cleanup.
> >
> > Ok. This patch is technically safe because none of the touched
> > code can live in a module and so we never touch the exit code path.
> >
> > However in the general case and as a code idiom this __net_initdata
> > on struct pernet_operations is fundamentally horribly broken.
> >
> > Look at what happens if we use this idiom in module. There
> > is only one definition of __initdata ".init.data". The module
> > loader places all sections that begin with .init in a region of
> > memory that will be discarded after module initialization.
>
> nothing is discarded after module load. Though, I can be wrong. Could
> you point me to the exact place?
If __initdata is not discarded after module load then we should do it.
There is no reason to waste __initdata RAM when the module is loaded.
Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists